1977
DOI: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.1977.tb99202.x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Teacher Evaluation

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

1979
1979
1989
1989

Publication Types

Select...
5

Relationship

1
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 7 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 2 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…But this attribute may also be the source of their limitation in providing diagnostic feedback to teachers (not unlike the limitations of grades given to students, which tell only whether one has done well or not). Some students' ratings may not be sufficient to reveal what particular aspects of teaching should be modified and by what means (Rotem & Garrick, 1977;Smock & Crooks, Note 2;Wharton, Note 8). Whether another type of feedback, such as open-ended responses, would produce more impact on teachers' performance than standardized ratings has not been tested.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…But this attribute may also be the source of their limitation in providing diagnostic feedback to teachers (not unlike the limitations of grades given to students, which tell only whether one has done well or not). Some students' ratings may not be sufficient to reveal what particular aspects of teaching should be modified and by what means (Rotem & Garrick, 1977;Smock & Crooks, Note 2;Wharton, Note 8). Whether another type of feedback, such as open-ended responses, would produce more impact on teachers' performance than standardized ratings has not been tested.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%